Senior Tory figures are preparing to enforce “brutal” party discipline on rebel MPs when they return to Parliament.
In a hardline drive inspired by Boris’s expulsion of Brexit critics, the whip will be removed for votes against mini-Budget.
How on earth does that even begin to work?!
Their most experienced Whip is Pincher. He’s gone (?) and “brutal” party discipline didn’t sort anything for Johnson. The 2019 GE did that.
I don't see how they last til 2024. I think laying that is the best bet around in UK politics.
If Truss stays she will be completely restricted in her actions by her Tory opponents. She won't be able to do very much of what she wants to do, and has little inclination to carry on Boris' programmes. Sooner or later she will call an election to have some chance of a manifesto that is aligned to her.
If she goes, her supporters will block whatever a new PM does as illegitimate and against the wishes of the party members.
I am expecting a general election middle of next year.
Losing the whip to this leader may be seen by many Tory MPs as being a net positive to their longer term prospects.
We are in unprecedented times but experience suggests otherwise.
That amazing libertarian ideal of forcing people to work even if they feel they aren't being paid what they're worth. Which I assume will be done with all the force of the state - rules around claiming benefits, police at picket lines, and the choice between serfdom or starving.
We need to retire the idea that Truss is a libertarian - her economics are not about increasing freedom, it's about capital accumulating with the already rich. There is nothing freeing about being unable to collectively bargain, there is nothing emancipatory about claiming the only working unit is the individual.
Not forcing them to work at all - they can quit.
But why should ordinary members of the public - who aren't party to the wage dispute and can't do anything to resolve it - be the ones to be punished?
In an ideal world, curbs on strikes wouldn't be necessary. But in an ideal world, militant unions wouldn't take it out on people who can't do anything about it.
They *are* quitting. Already. In their thousands. And there are no replacements. That's the problem.
You can only use the threat of restrictions on right to strike if you have an ample supply of replacements. There are no doctors you could call on you haven't already recruited. Or nurses. As for teachers, by closing 30% of training courses they're going to absolutely squeeze supply. But that's not even as bad as it sounds because they can't afford to pay their wages anyway.
It's an empty threat. What would she do if they ignored her? Lock them up? Sack them? Sue them?
I would add that actually I don't think education unions are particularly militant. I worked in one school where the head had actually threatened several members of staff with physical violence and they needed a lot of prodding from me to intervene. There were two national strikes in all my years in teaching despite appalling and frequently illegal actions to change terms and conditions and chronic mismanagement and abuse by those in authority. We didn't strike during covid, for example, although we probably should have done given several things the DfE demanded of us were breaches not only of our contracts and covid regulations but of ordinary health and safety law.
That's partly because most teachers don't want to strike. They care about children, unlike say, the DfE or the Daily Mail, and they don't want to disrupt their education. There's actually one Union, the Voice, which has that as its fundamental principle.
But you have to have the right to withdraw your labour to protest at misguided or especially illegal actions by the bosses. That's a fundamental point of workplace law. If she restricts it, the NHS and the education system will certainly both implode.
Do you think prison officers and the police should have the right to strike?
I think any profession where a lot of training is required (like driving a train) should have restrictions on strike action. It's actually quite difficult to get a job as a train driver and the unions like it that way.
Everyone should have a right to strike. If they specialise to this degree, then how transferable are their skills? If their skills aren't transferable, what are their options for other work? If they can't just get a new job, how do they change the terms of their current job if they are bad? The only way is through collective bargaining and a right to strike.
The weird things about police, though, is when they strike - crime goes down - so I'm also in favour from that pov:
David David was on R4 this morning spouting the same guff. If they don't move now, they'll face the impossible choice if changing leaders with no time for the replacement to turn things around, or sticking with a PM who, they'll come to realise, is going to lead them to electoral annihilation.
Bad investors make the same mistake of not cutting their losses early, in the vain hope things might improve.
The Tory MPs are going to have to catch a falling knife.
I can't even contemplate watching Truss's speech. Too damn painful.
If they manage to catch the falling knife they'll only use it to stab each other in the back.
We're at the rats in a sack phase now.
We need an election so we can have a government that can get to grips with the crisis we're facing.
Sadly, the most likely result from an immediate election, is one where the SNP holds the balance of power. Just about the only way to make politics more unstable than it is already.
Sad news this morning that the oldest living advocate, Ian Hamilton KC, the man who "liberated" the stone of destiny and returned it to Scotland, has died. He was an extraordinary defence advocate and a genuinely nice man.
I don't know what they're doing differently here in the South of France but the energy prices haven't gone up and petrol is still 1.58 euros a litre....
.....and the sun is shining the cafes are busy the restaurants are heaving and everyone seems happy ........
............. I wonder if they're tuning in to UK TV?
London was exactly the same yesterday. The sun was shining, Selfridges was rammed with shoppers (the Menswear section has a new oyster bar), Marylebone was charmingly busy, Regent’s Park getting ready for Frieze
Armageddon and Depression felt light years away. But they are not
It will serve them right for not all dying of Covid, as you said they should?
New: ministers expected to raise state pension age to 68 for millions... 2035 being openly speculated by ministers... announcment expected before Christmas in bid to shore up markets and long term bonds further
That amazing libertarian ideal of forcing people to work even if they feel they aren't being paid what they're worth. Which I assume will be done with all the force of the state - rules around claiming benefits, police at picket lines, and the choice between serfdom or starving.
We need to retire the idea that Truss is a libertarian - her economics are not about increasing freedom, it's about capital accumulating with the already rich. There is nothing freeing about being unable to collectively bargain, there is nothing emancipatory about claiming the only working unit is the individual.
In a truly libertarian world there would be no unions at all and no minimum wage, wages would be purely determined by the free market
Which is why Libertarianism is about as successful as Communism.
You really shouldn't listen to HYUFD's guff about libertarianism. If you are interested (and I genuinely accept you may well not be bothered) then a moment's research will show that libertarians are very supportive of unions. They come under 'the right to free assembly and association'. They oppose compulsory membership and political levies and also oppose people having to go on strike if they don't want to. But the right to organise and to withhold labour in any and all circumstances is fundamental to the philosophy.
This is why HYUFD is again wrong to consider Truss a libertarian. Forcing people to work against their will is complete anathema to the ideology.
Although it is from an American perspective the whole thing is covered well here:
Surely the issue is people who claim to be libertarian, but who are not. That cannot be unusual, just as plenty of self proclaimed liberals espouse illiberal ideals, and plenty of Conservatives are far from conservative.
I don't know what they're doing differently here in the South of France but the energy prices haven't gone up and petrol is still 1.58 euros a litre....
.....and the sun is shining the cafes are busy the restaurants are heaving and everyone seems happy ........
............. I wonder if they're tuning in to UK TV?
London was exactly the same yesterday. The sun was shining, Selfridges was rammed with shoppers (the Menswear section has a new oyster bar), Marylebone was charmingly busy, Regent’s Park getting ready for Frieze
Armageddon and Depression felt light years away. But they are not
Can you have Armageddon and an (economic) depression at the same time? An economic depression suggests at least some economic activity. I recommend you watch the seminal 1984 BBC TV movie "Threads" that is available on Britbox (although given your apparent nervous disposition maybe not a good idea - read the Wiki synopsis at least). The last half of it shows that "depression" does not adequately come close to describing a post-Armageddon economy.
I watched Threads about a week ago and spoke of it at length on here
One of the bleakest movies I’ve ever seen. Also a great work of televisual art
As I said 2 nights ago the most jawdropping thing for me was how England looked a year after I graduated from university. My first two cars had older registrations than anything in the film. It was so archaic it could have been 1930s Russia or Victorian London.
That, and two young working class kids working on the spacious flat they intend to buy.
Imagine having so much joy at the thought of seeing people being deported . It’s sick and cruel and Braverman is clearly a person without a shred of humanity . And the Tory crowd lapped it up ! Wtf is wrong with this country !
New: ministers expected to raise state pension age to 68 for millions... 2035 being openly speculated by ministers... announcment expected before Christmas in bid to shore up markets and long term bonds further
Imagine having so much joy at the thought of seeing people being deported . It’s sick and cruel and Braverman is clearly a person without a shred of humanity . And the Tory crowd lapped it up ! Wtf is wrong with this country !
I think we might need a hundred or so cyclefree headers to get to the bottom of that.
That amazing libertarian ideal of forcing people to work even if they feel they aren't being paid what they're worth. Which I assume will be done with all the force of the state - rules around claiming benefits, police at picket lines, and the choice between serfdom or starving.
We need to retire the idea that Truss is a libertarian - her economics are not about increasing freedom, it's about capital accumulating with the already rich. There is nothing freeing about being unable to collectively bargain, there is nothing emancipatory about claiming the only working unit is the individual.
Not forcing them to work at all - they can quit.
But why should ordinary members of the public - who aren't party to the wage dispute and can't do anything to resolve it - be the ones to be punished?
In an ideal world, curbs on strikes wouldn't be necessary. But in an ideal world, militant unions wouldn't take it out on people who can't do anything about it.
They *are* quitting. Already. In their thousands. And there are no replacements. That's the problem.
You can only use the threat of restrictions on right to strike if you have an ample supply of replacements. There are no doctors you could call on you haven't already recruited. Or nurses. As for teachers, by closing 30% of training courses they're going to absolutely squeeze supply. But that's not even as bad as it sounds because they can't afford to pay their wages anyway.
It's an empty threat. What would she do if they ignored her? Lock them up? Sack them? Sue them?
I would add that actually I don't think education unions are particularly militant. I worked in one school where the head had actually threatened several members of staff with physical violence and they needed a lot of prodding from me to intervene. There were two national strikes in all my years in teaching despite appalling and frequently illegal actions to change terms and conditions and chronic mismanagement and abuse by those in authority. We didn't strike during covid, for example, although we probably should have done given several things the DfE demanded of us were breaches not only of our contracts and covid regulations but of ordinary health and safety law.
That's partly because most teachers don't want to strike. They care about children, unlike say, the DfE or the Daily Mail, and they don't want to disrupt their education. There's actually one Union, the Voice, which has that as its fundamental principle.
But you have to have the right to withdraw your labour to protest at misguided or especially illegal actions by the bosses. That's a fundamental point of workplace law. If she restricts it, the NHS and the education system will certainly both implode.
There's one sentence in my comment which you didn't address, perhaps because you don't have an answer for it:
But why should ordinary members of the public - who aren't party to the wage dispute and can't do anything to resolve it - be the ones to be punished?
That's why they don't strike!
'most teachers don't want to strike. They care about children, unlike say, the DfE or the Daily Mail, and they don't want to disrupt their education.'
Just as doctors don't. I've known doctors who were lazy and complacent but I've never known one who actively tried to harm patients (although they do exist, of course, as the likes of Messrs Shipman and Meadow demonstrate).
But - more importantly - you are displaying a lack of logic. The public elect and control the government. If, therefore, the government takes actions that leads to a strike in public services that is something derived of the people who elected them, and it is open to them to change their vote to stop it happening.
Firefighters do. Rail unions, in particular, do - they strike at the drop of a hat.
But you miss the point - saying "the people elect the government", whilst true, doesn't help the people today give the rail workers more money today. Or are you telling me that these strikes will go on until the next election in 2024 or even 2025?
I don't know what they're doing differently here in the South of France but the energy prices haven't gone up and petrol is still 1.58 euros a litre....
.....and the sun is shining the cafes are busy the restaurants are heaving and everyone seems happy ........
............. I wonder if they're tuning in to UK TV?
France has nuclear energy, how do you spend so much time there and bang on about it so much and not know that?
The petrol price seems about the same, its back into the 1.50s here too. The exchange rate isn't the same, but I think France has lower fuel duty.
A couple of days back I saw regular gas here on offer below $3 (noting that the US gallon is one of the few American things that is smaller). A big change from the $4.20-odd when I started my trip.
That amazing libertarian ideal of forcing people to work even if they feel they aren't being paid what they're worth. Which I assume will be done with all the force of the state - rules around claiming benefits, police at picket lines, and the choice between serfdom or starving.
We need to retire the idea that Truss is a libertarian - her economics are not about increasing freedom, it's about capital accumulating with the already rich. There is nothing freeing about being unable to collectively bargain, there is nothing emancipatory about claiming the only working unit is the individual.
Not forcing them to work at all - they can quit.
But why should ordinary members of the public - who aren't party to the wage dispute and can't do anything to resolve it - be the ones to be punished?
In an ideal world, curbs on strikes wouldn't be necessary. But in an ideal world, militant unions wouldn't take it out on people who can't do anything about it.
They *are* quitting. Already. In their thousands. And there are no replacements. That's the problem.
You can only use the threat of restrictions on right to strike if you have an ample supply of replacements. There are no doctors you could call on you haven't already recruited. Or nurses. As for teachers, by closing 30% of training courses they're going to absolutely squeeze supply. But that's not even as bad as it sounds because they can't afford to pay their wages anyway.
It's an empty threat. What would she do if they ignored her? Lock them up? Sack them? Sue them?
I would add that actually I don't think education unions are particularly militant. I worked in one school where the head had actually threatened several members of staff with physical violence and they needed a lot of prodding from me to intervene. There were two national strikes in all my years in teaching despite appalling and frequently illegal actions to change terms and conditions and chronic mismanagement and abuse by those in authority. We didn't strike during covid, for example, although we probably should have done given several things the DfE demanded of us were breaches not only of our contracts and covid regulations but of ordinary health and safety law.
That's partly because most teachers don't want to strike. They care about children, unlike say, the DfE or the Daily Mail, and they don't want to disrupt their education. There's actually one Union, the Voice, which has that as its fundamental principle.
But you have to have the right to withdraw your labour to protest at misguided or especially illegal actions by the bosses. That's a fundamental point of workplace law. If she restricts it, the NHS and the education system will certainly both implode.
There's one sentence in my comment which you didn't address, perhaps because you don't have an answer for it:
But why should ordinary members of the public - who aren't party to the wage dispute and can't do anything to resolve it - be the ones to be punished?
If you're not a party to the dispute, you're not directly affected by the dispute.
If you're a customer of the firm whose staff are on strike etc, then you are a party to the dispute.
Not in the sense that you have any way of resolving it.
I think another point for those opposed to strikes and unions to ponder is that far from solving the problem they tend to bottle it up and make it worse. If you can't strike legally under the auspices of a union, then the time comes when people strike illegally. And illegal strikes are very dangerous in every way. First of all, they usually only happen when the workers are pushed past human endurance and can take no more, so they will be angry, desperate and usually violent. Second, because they are not organised, there is nobody to negotiate with to deal with the grievances so they normally become open ended. Finally, because they usually lead to civil disorder they can actually be a threat to the survival of the state.
Some examples that spring to mind: the Putilov steelworks strike in Petrograd, caused by overwork, dangerous conditions, lack of food and violent repression. This spiralled in a mere week into the February REvolution.
The Penrhyn Strike from 1900-1905, which ended in effect with the destruction of the Welsh slate industry because nobody could work out how to resolve it and foreign imports took all the market. Which didn't really help anyone.
That amazing libertarian ideal of forcing people to work even if they feel they aren't being paid what they're worth. Which I assume will be done with all the force of the state - rules around claiming benefits, police at picket lines, and the choice between serfdom or starving.
We need to retire the idea that Truss is a libertarian - her economics are not about increasing freedom, it's about capital accumulating with the already rich. There is nothing freeing about being unable to collectively bargain, there is nothing emancipatory about claiming the only working unit is the individual.
Not forcing them to work at all - they can quit.
But why should ordinary members of the public - who aren't party to the wage dispute and can't do anything to resolve it - be the ones to be punished?
In an ideal world, curbs on strikes wouldn't be necessary. But in an ideal world, militant unions wouldn't take it out on people who can't do anything about it.
We already have some of the most restrictive union laws in the west. How much further would you go?
I would require unions who choose to strike to pay compensation to the innocent people they affect by doing so.
Truss is going after the "anti-growth" blob - everyone who disagrees with her. That's Labour, businesses, anyone with a mortgage, anyone who rents, students, people earning below 150k, people earning over 150k who quite like public services...Isn't she going to run out of voters? https://twitter.com/RMCunliffe/status/1577591591845433348
EDIT: This is exactly what Dan Finkelstein is talking about
Yet the Tory party seems to want to be at war with as many people as it can find. Metropolitan elites, people who study golf course management in universities, young people, the Treasury, big business, people who work from home, the International Monetary Fund, the civil service, the BBC. The only people who don’t think the Conservative Party is for the rich are the rich who think the Tory party hates them.
@Leon tried to tell us how fantastic Liz Truss was going to be. I assume he has now recanted.
Has there ever, in British history, been a more inept person as Prime Minister? She is absolutely dire. The most godawful, out of depth, useless, zombified, disaster zone in political history:
How the hell did the Conservative membership do this to themselves and us?
(Not a Tory but) I thought she be good too, I think it's my biggest ever miss reading British politics.
Somewhat in her defence I think she had some bad luck as well as bad judgement, in that a bunch of other factors aligned to make the markets freak out the way they did. It was the market freak-out that put her firmly in the "dumb ideologue wrecking the economy" box and destroyed all hope of the "bold fresh leader sweeping all opposition aside" vibe she was presumably aiming for.
Not my biggest miss (that's a crowded field with Donald trump's face leering at me) but j was pretty confident she would surprise on the upside.
I thought Truss would surprise on the upside as well for the simple reason that the expectation was so low there wasn't any room to underperform. It's truly remarkable that she's managed it.
Truss is going after the "anti-growth" blob - everyone who disagrees with her. That's Labour, businesses, anyone with a mortgage, anyone who rents, students, people earning below 150k, people earning over 150k who quite like public services...Isn't she going to run out of voters? https://twitter.com/RMCunliffe/status/1577591591845433348
That amazing libertarian ideal of forcing people to work even if they feel they aren't being paid what they're worth. Which I assume will be done with all the force of the state - rules around claiming benefits, police at picket lines, and the choice between serfdom or starving.
We need to retire the idea that Truss is a libertarian - her economics are not about increasing freedom, it's about capital accumulating with the already rich. There is nothing freeing about being unable to collectively bargain, there is nothing emancipatory about claiming the only working unit is the individual.
In a truly libertarian world there would be no unions at all and no minimum wage, wages would be purely determined by the free market
Which is why Libertarianism is about as successful as Communism.
You really shouldn't listen to HYUFD's guff about libertarianism. If you are interested (and I genuinely accept you may well not be bothered) then a moment's research will show that libertarians are very supportive of unions. They come under 'the right to free assembly and association'. They oppose compulsory membership and political levies and also oppose people having to go on strike if they don't want to. But the right to organise and to withhold labour in any and all circumstances is fundamental to the philosophy.
This is why HYUFD is again wrong to consider Truss a libertarian. Forcing people to work against their will is complete anathema to the ideology.
Although it is from an American perspective the whole thing is covered well here:
Surely the issue is people who claim to be libertarian, but who are not. That cannot be unusual, just as plenty of self proclaimed liberals espouse illiberal ideals, and plenty of Conservatives are far from conservative.
Indeed. Too many people see libertarianism as a right to do what they want but stop others doing the same. They also forget that the basic premise is one of personal responsibility.
That amazing libertarian ideal of forcing people to work even if they feel they aren't being paid what they're worth. Which I assume will be done with all the force of the state - rules around claiming benefits, police at picket lines, and the choice between serfdom or starving.
We need to retire the idea that Truss is a libertarian - her economics are not about increasing freedom, it's about capital accumulating with the already rich. There is nothing freeing about being unable to collectively bargain, there is nothing emancipatory about claiming the only working unit is the individual.
Not forcing them to work at all - they can quit.
But why should ordinary members of the public - who aren't party to the wage dispute and can't do anything to resolve it - be the ones to be punished?
In an ideal world, curbs on strikes wouldn't be necessary. But in an ideal world, militant unions wouldn't take it out on people who can't do anything about it.
They *are* quitting. Already. In their thousands. And there are no replacements. That's the problem.
You can only use the threat of restrictions on right to strike if you have an ample supply of replacements. There are no doctors you could call on you haven't already recruited. Or nurses. As for teachers, by closing 30% of training courses they're going to absolutely squeeze supply. But that's not even as bad as it sounds because they can't afford to pay their wages anyway.
It's an empty threat. What would she do if they ignored her? Lock them up? Sack them? Sue them?
I would add that actually I don't think education unions are particularly militant. I worked in one school where the head had actually threatened several members of staff with physical violence and they needed a lot of prodding from me to intervene. There were two national strikes in all my years in teaching despite appalling and frequently illegal actions to change terms and conditions and chronic mismanagement and abuse by those in authority. We didn't strike during covid, for example, although we probably should have done given several things the DfE demanded of us were breaches not only of our contracts and covid regulations but of ordinary health and safety law.
That's partly because most teachers don't want to strike. They care about children, unlike say, the DfE or the Daily Mail, and they don't want to disrupt their education. There's actually one Union, the Voice, which has that as its fundamental principle.
But you have to have the right to withdraw your labour to protest at misguided or especially illegal actions by the bosses. That's a fundamental point of workplace law. If she restricts it, the NHS and the education system will certainly both implode.
There's one sentence in my comment which you didn't address, perhaps because you don't have an answer for it:
But why should ordinary members of the public - who aren't party to the wage dispute and can't do anything to resolve it - be the ones to be punished?
That's why they don't strike!
'most teachers don't want to strike. They care about children, unlike say, the DfE or the Daily Mail, and they don't want to disrupt their education.'
Just as doctors don't. I've known doctors who were lazy and complacent but I've never known one who actively tried to harm patients (although they do exist, of course, as the likes of Messrs Shipman and Meadow demonstrate).
But - more importantly - you are displaying a lack of logic. The public elect and control the government. If, therefore, the government takes actions that leads to a strike in public services that is something derived of the people who elected them, and it is open to them to change their vote to stop it happening.
Firefighters do. Rail unions, in particular, do - they strike at the drop of a hat.
But you miss the point - saying "the people elect the government", whilst true, doesn't help the people today give the rail workers more money today. Or are you telling me that these strikes will go on until the next election in 2024 or even 2025?
If railways are so necessary for the basic functioning of our society - with the movement of people, workers, resources, etc. should they not have working conditions and pay that reflects that? I would say yes. How else do they prove their worth? Well, how easy is life without them? I have theatre tickets on Saturday, it's going to be a pain for me to get into London and out again without trains. Is that the workers' fault? No - the train company and government could decide to treat their workers better. Sure, it impacts negatively that I can't get to places for a weekend, but it would be worse if the railway never functioned at all because nobody wants to work it all the time.
That amazing libertarian ideal of forcing people to work even if they feel they aren't being paid what they're worth. Which I assume will be done with all the force of the state - rules around claiming benefits, police at picket lines, and the choice between serfdom or starving.
We need to retire the idea that Truss is a libertarian - her economics are not about increasing freedom, it's about capital accumulating with the already rich. There is nothing freeing about being unable to collectively bargain, there is nothing emancipatory about claiming the only working unit is the individual.
Not forcing them to work at all - they can quit.
But why should ordinary members of the public - who aren't party to the wage dispute and can't do anything to resolve it - be the ones to be punished?
In an ideal world, curbs on strikes wouldn't be necessary. But in an ideal world, militant unions wouldn't take it out on people who can't do anything about it.
They *are* quitting. Already. In their thousands. And there are no replacements. That's the problem.
You can only use the threat of restrictions on right to strike if you have an ample supply of replacements. There are no doctors you could call on you haven't already recruited. Or nurses. As for teachers, by closing 30% of training courses they're going to absolutely squeeze supply. But that's not even as bad as it sounds because they can't afford to pay their wages anyway.
It's an empty threat. What would she do if they ignored her? Lock them up? Sack them? Sue them?
I would add that actually I don't think education unions are particularly militant. I worked in one school where the head had actually threatened several members of staff with physical violence and they needed a lot of prodding from me to intervene. There were two national strikes in all my years in teaching despite appalling and frequently illegal actions to change terms and conditions and chronic mismanagement and abuse by those in authority. We didn't strike during covid, for example, although we probably should have done given several things the DfE demanded of us were breaches not only of our contracts and covid regulations but of ordinary health and safety law.
That's partly because most teachers don't want to strike. They care about children, unlike say, the DfE or the Daily Mail, and they don't want to disrupt their education. There's actually one Union, the Voice, which has that as its fundamental principle.
But you have to have the right to withdraw your labour to protest at misguided or especially illegal actions by the bosses. That's a fundamental point of workplace law. If she restricts it, the NHS and the education system will certainly both implode.
There's one sentence in my comment which you didn't address, perhaps because you don't have an answer for it:
But why should ordinary members of the public - who aren't party to the wage dispute and can't do anything to resolve it - be the ones to be punished?
That's why they don't strike!
'most teachers don't want to strike. They care about children, unlike say, the DfE or the Daily Mail, and they don't want to disrupt their education.'
Just as doctors don't. I've known doctors who were lazy and complacent but I've never known one who actively tried to harm patients (although they do exist, of course, as the likes of Messrs Shipman and Meadow demonstrate).
But - more importantly - you are displaying a lack of logic. The public elect and control the government. If, therefore, the government takes actions that leads to a strike in public services that is something derived of the people who elected them, and it is open to them to change their vote to stop it happening.
Firefighters do. Rail unions, in particular, do - they strike at the drop of a hat.
But you miss the point - saying "the people elect the government", whilst true, doesn't help the people today give the rail workers more money today. Or are you telling me that these strikes will go on until the next election in 2024 or even 2025?
Leaving aside the minor detail that at the moment there are no strikes in health or education, if the government doesn't change course it is very probable that the system will implode with or without strikes. Strikes are a symptom, not the cause, of the chaos.
So yes, if we want to sort it out we need the government to deal with the underlying issues, or elect a new government at the earliest possible moment.
Senior Tory figures are preparing to enforce “brutal” party discipline on rebel MPs when they return to Parliament.
In a hardline drive inspired by Boris’s expulsion of Brexit critics, the whip will be removed for votes against mini-Budget.
How on earth does that even begin to work?!
Their most experienced Whip is Pincher. He’s gone (?) and “brutal” party discipline didn’t sort anything for Johnson. The 2019 GE did that.
I don't see how they last til 2024. I think laying that is the best bet around in UK politics.
If Truss stays she will be completely restricted in her actions by her Tory opponents. She won't be able to do very much of what she wants to do, and has little inclination to carry on Boris' programmes. Sooner or later she will call an election to have some chance of a manifesto that is aligned to her.
If she goes, her supporters will block whatever a new PM does as illegitimate and against the wishes of the party members.
I am expecting a general election middle of next year.
Losing the whip to this leader may be seen by many Tory MPs as being a net positive to their longer term prospects.
We are in unprecedented times but experience suggests otherwise.
Run that past me again?
Deliberate caveat of learning lessons from experience given how different politics is now. Past experience of people losing the whip is clearly not in the favour of their future political careers. But there is a bigger than normal chance that this trend does not apply in such a turbulent and silly political world.
In terms of the Mail, it will turn against Truss but I suspect it will do so in a different way to other publications.
It will tell it’s readership that the policies are right it’s just that they’ve been incompetently delivered. The reason they are not arriving at a land of milk and honey is not because low tax or deregulation is a bad thing, but because Truss and Kwarteng are so useless that they have fumbled the delivery.
That will then give them cause to start their next crusade once the Tories lose the election, which will be “this wouldn’t have happened if Truss had been more competent / more anti woke / had allowed Suella to go nuts on migrants / rinse, repeat. And they will expect the new Tory leadership to follow that tune.
That amazing libertarian ideal of forcing people to work even if they feel they aren't being paid what they're worth. Which I assume will be done with all the force of the state - rules around claiming benefits, police at picket lines, and the choice between serfdom or starving.
We need to retire the idea that Truss is a libertarian - her economics are not about increasing freedom, it's about capital accumulating with the already rich. There is nothing freeing about being unable to collectively bargain, there is nothing emancipatory about claiming the only working unit is the individual.
Not forcing them to work at all - they can quit.
But why should ordinary members of the public - who aren't party to the wage dispute and can't do anything to resolve it - be the ones to be punished?
In an ideal world, curbs on strikes wouldn't be necessary. But in an ideal world, militant unions wouldn't take it out on people who can't do anything about it.
They *are* quitting. Already. In their thousands. And there are no replacements. That's the problem.
You can only use the threat of restrictions on right to strike if you have an ample supply of replacements. There are no doctors you could call on you haven't already recruited. Or nurses. As for teachers, by closing 30% of training courses they're going to absolutely squeeze supply. But that's not even as bad as it sounds because they can't afford to pay their wages anyway.
It's an empty threat. What would she do if they ignored her? Lock them up? Sack them? Sue them?
I would add that actually I don't think education unions are particularly militant. I worked in one school where the head had actually threatened several members of staff with physical violence and they needed a lot of prodding from me to intervene. There were two national strikes in all my years in teaching despite appalling and frequently illegal actions to change terms and conditions and chronic mismanagement and abuse by those in authority. We didn't strike during covid, for example, although we probably should have done given several things the DfE demanded of us were breaches not only of our contracts and covid regulations but of ordinary health and safety law.
That's partly because most teachers don't want to strike. They care about children, unlike say, the DfE or the Daily Mail, and they don't want to disrupt their education. There's actually one Union, the Voice, which has that as its fundamental principle.
But you have to have the right to withdraw your labour to protest at misguided or especially illegal actions by the bosses. That's a fundamental point of workplace law. If she restricts it, the NHS and the education system will certainly both implode.
There's one sentence in my comment which you didn't address, perhaps because you don't have an answer for it:
But why should ordinary members of the public - who aren't party to the wage dispute and can't do anything to resolve it - be the ones to be punished?
Because it is illegal to strike in a way that benefits people but harms companies? For example, the suggestion of bus strikes where drivers still drive buses but refuse to take payment - something done is Australia and Japan - would be considered theft here and leave people up to prosecution.
It's also important to not that the vast majority of workers are ordinary members of the public, and that if you want the fruits of people's labour, then you have to treat those people well. It is the height of entitlement to argue that somehow you are owed the fruits of their labour regardless of the conditions of their work.
A bit reductio ad absurdum but: "Look, slavery is bad, but if slaves all revolt, don't they understand I won't be able to buy cotton shirts, and that's really important to me"
If you're a train driver, you're not an "ordinary member of the public", you're probably on £50k plus. Equating them with slaves is beyond absurd.
Senior Tory figures are preparing to enforce “brutal” party discipline on rebel MPs when they return to Parliament.
In a hardline drive inspired by Boris’s expulsion of Brexit critics, the whip will be removed for votes against mini-Budget.
How on earth does that even begin to work?!
Their most experienced Whip is Pincher. He’s gone (?) and “brutal” party discipline didn’t sort anything for Johnson. The 2019 GE did that.
I don't see how they last til 2024. I think laying that is the best bet around in UK politics.
If Truss stays she will be completely restricted in her actions by her Tory opponents. She won't be able to do very much of what she wants to do, and has little inclination to carry on Boris' programmes. Sooner or later she will call an election to have some chance of a manifesto that is aligned to her.
If she goes, her supporters will block whatever a new PM does as illegitimate and against the wishes of the party members.
I am expecting a general election middle of next year.
Losing the whip to this leader may be seen by many Tory MPs as being a net positive to their longer term prospects.
We are in unprecedented times but experience suggests otherwise.
Run that past me again?
Deliberate caveat of learning lessons from experience given how different politics is now. Past experience of people losing the whip is clearly not in the favour of their future political careers. But there is a bigger than normal chance that this trend does not apply in such a turbulent and silly political world.
TBH I posted for the likes rather than the response, but thanks anyway…
Truss is going after the "anti-growth" blob - everyone who disagrees with her. That's Labour, businesses, anyone with a mortgage, anyone who rents, students, people earning below 150k, people earning over 150k who quite like public services...Isn't she going to run out of voters? https://twitter.com/RMCunliffe/status/1577591591845433348
She'll always have Mayfair.
I don't think that many people in Mayfair actually have the right to vote in UK elections..
That amazing libertarian ideal of forcing people to work even if they feel they aren't being paid what they're worth. Which I assume will be done with all the force of the state - rules around claiming benefits, police at picket lines, and the choice between serfdom or starving.
We need to retire the idea that Truss is a libertarian - her economics are not about increasing freedom, it's about capital accumulating with the already rich. There is nothing freeing about being unable to collectively bargain, there is nothing emancipatory about claiming the only working unit is the individual.
Not forcing them to work at all - they can quit.
But why should ordinary members of the public - who aren't party to the wage dispute and can't do anything to resolve it - be the ones to be punished?
In an ideal world, curbs on strikes wouldn't be necessary. But in an ideal world, militant unions wouldn't take it out on people who can't do anything about it.
We already have some of the most restrictive union laws in the west. How much further would you go?
I would require unions who choose to strike to pay compensation to the innocent people they affect by doing so.
Google the Taff Vale judgement. You might find it informative.
🇬🇧 🇺🇦 Training of junior commanders of the Armed Forces of Ukraine has begun in Great Britain - basic level training of junior commanders of the Armed Forces of Ukraine has begun on the territory of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
I think that we have been doing that for months. Maybe another batch. But you have to say that the way the Ukranian army have performed hopefully makes this a two way street. They have a lot to teach us about survival on the modern battlefield against modern weaponry and the use and misuse of social media on the battlefield.
That amazing libertarian ideal of forcing people to work even if they feel they aren't being paid what they're worth. Which I assume will be done with all the force of the state - rules around claiming benefits, police at picket lines, and the choice between serfdom or starving.
We need to retire the idea that Truss is a libertarian - her economics are not about increasing freedom, it's about capital accumulating with the already rich. There is nothing freeing about being unable to collectively bargain, there is nothing emancipatory about claiming the only working unit is the individual.
Not forcing them to work at all - they can quit.
But why should ordinary members of the public - who aren't party to the wage dispute and can't do anything to resolve it - be the ones to be punished?
In an ideal world, curbs on strikes wouldn't be necessary. But in an ideal world, militant unions wouldn't take it out on people who can't do anything about it.
We already have some of the most restrictive union laws in the west. How much further would you go?
I would require unions who choose to strike to pay compensation to the innocent people they affect by doing so.
So you'd repeal the more than century old golden formula on protecting unions from tortious claims arising from disputes "made in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute", currently contained in section 219 Trade Unions and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, but originally enacted by Disraeli's Tory government in the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875. In doing so, do you expect to avoid the long period of industrial unrest that followed the last attempt to abolish this rule, Heath's, via the Industrial Relations Act 1971, or Thatcher's limiting it to those unions who have passed a vote permitting it? Bold.
When the Spectator, the Mail and the Telegraph start to turn on the Tories, it is a done deal. Any movement we see from the Tory corpse is just the final spams and twitches as life drains away.
Senior Tory figures are preparing to enforce “brutal” party discipline on rebel MPs when they return to Parliament.
In a hardline drive inspired by Boris’s expulsion of Brexit critics, the whip will be removed for votes against mini-Budget.
(TBC if it works…)
How many Tory MPs are going to look at their chances at the next election and think - blow this I may as well sit as an independent - it will be more fun....
Senior Tory figures are preparing to enforce “brutal” party discipline on rebel MPs when they return to Parliament.
In a hardline drive inspired by Boris’s expulsion of Brexit critics, the whip will be removed for votes against mini-Budget.
(TBC if it works…)
How many Tory MPs are going to look at their chances at the next election and think - blow this I may as well sit as an independent - it will be more fun....
Why not go the whole way and cross the floor? Independents generally do not get elected, but Labour or the Libs do...
Senior Tory figures are preparing to enforce “brutal” party discipline on rebel MPs when they return to Parliament.
In a hardline drive inspired by Boris’s expulsion of Brexit critics, the whip will be removed for votes against mini-Budget.
(TBC if it works…)
How many Tory MPs are going to look at their chances at the next election and think - blow this I may as well sit as an independent - it will be more fun....
That amazing libertarian ideal of forcing people to work even if they feel they aren't being paid what they're worth. Which I assume will be done with all the force of the state - rules around claiming benefits, police at picket lines, and the choice between serfdom or starving.
We need to retire the idea that Truss is a libertarian - her economics are not about increasing freedom, it's about capital accumulating with the already rich. There is nothing freeing about being unable to collectively bargain, there is nothing emancipatory about claiming the only working unit is the individual.
Not forcing them to work at all - they can quit.
But why should ordinary members of the public - who aren't party to the wage dispute and can't do anything to resolve it - be the ones to be punished?
In an ideal world, curbs on strikes wouldn't be necessary. But in an ideal world, militant unions wouldn't take it out on people who can't do anything about it.
We already have some of the most restrictive union laws in the west. How much further would you go?
I would require unions who choose to strike to pay compensation to the innocent people they affect by doing so.
So you'd repeal the more than century old golden formula on protecting unions from tortious claims arising from disputes "made in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute", currently contained in section 219 Trade Unions and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, but originally enacted by Disraeli's Tory government in the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875. In doing so, do you expect to avoid the long period of industrial unrest that followed the last attempt to abolish this rule, Heath's, via the Industrial Relations Act 1971, or Thatcher's limiting it to those unions who have passed a vote permitting it? Bold.
I don't know what they're doing differently here in the South of France but the energy prices haven't gone up and petrol is still 1.58 euros a litre....
.....and the sun is shining the cafes are busy the restaurants are heaving and everyone seems happy ........
............. I wonder if they're tuning in to UK TV?
France has nuclear energy, how do you spend so much time there and bang on about it so much and not know that?
The petrol price seems about the same, its back into the 1.50s here too. The exchange rate isn't the same, but I think France has lower fuel duty.
A couple of days back I saw regular gas here on offer below $3 (noting that the US gallon is one of the few American things that is smaller). A big change from the $4.20-odd when I started my trip.
Yep, petrol here just dropped another 10% at the start of the month.
We need an election so we can have a government that can get to grips with the crisis we're facing.
This is true, but an election now is an extinction level event for the Tories.
Not just in the number of seats they retain, but who gets the blame.
The Rishi supporters will blame Truss and friends. The headbangers will blame Rishi and friends
They could well split (may be no bad thing)
Because they are in government the internal psychodramas of the Tory party are an issue for the whole country, and this exaggerates the importance of those differences.
Once the Tories are in opposition their internal conflicts will be off very little importance. The world will move on as decisions are made without reference to the personal ambitions of one suck-up to Lord Frost or another.
This will eventually give Tories the perspective to determine which of their differences are important and which are not.
It's a weakness of our system that the strength of the parties is such that the next election will be delayed for two years. If the party system were not too strong then the government would have fallen and we'd be able to move on a couple of years earlier. Two years of drift and decay.
Senior Tory figures are preparing to enforce “brutal” party discipline on rebel MPs when they return to Parliament.
In a hardline drive inspired by Boris’s expulsion of Brexit critics, the whip will be removed for votes against mini-Budget.
(TBC if it works…)
How many Tory MPs are going to look at their chances at the next election and think - blow this I may as well sit as an independent - it will be more fun....
Why not go the whole way and cross the floor? Independents generally do not get elected, but Labour or the Libs do...
See my post earlier on - a lot of Red Wall Tory MPs are not going to be that welcome in the Labour Party. Now some will be but not in the numbers that would make a difference - you can't upset 50+ selected labour candidates seeing their chances go up in smoke as the current Tory candidate transfers over...
And were my current Tory MP to become the Labour Party candidate I would be spoiling my ballot....
That amazing libertarian ideal of forcing people to work even if they feel they aren't being paid what they're worth. Which I assume will be done with all the force of the state - rules around claiming benefits, police at picket lines, and the choice between serfdom or starving.
We need to retire the idea that Truss is a libertarian - her economics are not about increasing freedom, it's about capital accumulating with the already rich. There is nothing freeing about being unable to collectively bargain, there is nothing emancipatory about claiming the only working unit is the individual.
In a truly libertarian world there would be no unions at all and no minimum wage, wages would be purely determined by the free market
Why would there be no unions...would your libertarians ban them ?
HYUFD has no idea what libertarianism is or what it stands for. He uses it as an insult against anyone who doesn't agree with his ultra-statist, might is right ideology. In another time he would be wearing a black shirt and talking about jailing communists and anarchists.
Whilst I disagree with HYUFD typically, his description of how libertarians act is in keeping with what we see in the world - those right wing self styled libertarians in the US don't want unions to exist, demanding that only individuals can negotiate contracts and that minimum wage shouldn't be a thing.
I don't know of a right wing libertarian system that isn't openly hostile to the very existence of unions.
Wrong. I have already just answered this point with links. HYUFD is completely wrong on this as he is on almost every other topic on which he opines. You really should do your own research.
Wrong, libertarianism is the polar opposite of both socialism and social conservatism.
Pure libertarianism is based on pure free market and pure socially liberal ideology. Essentially as little state as possible
That amazing libertarian ideal of forcing people to work even if they feel they aren't being paid what they're worth. Which I assume will be done with all the force of the state - rules around claiming benefits, police at picket lines, and the choice between serfdom or starving.
We need to retire the idea that Truss is a libertarian - her economics are not about increasing freedom, it's about capital accumulating with the already rich. There is nothing freeing about being unable to collectively bargain, there is nothing emancipatory about claiming the only working unit is the individual.
In a truly libertarian world there would be no unions at all and no minimum wage, wages would be purely determined by the free market
Which is why Libertarianism is about as successful as Communism.
You really shouldn't listen to HYUFD's guff about libertarianism. If you are interested (and I genuinely accept you may well not be bothered) then a moment's research will show that libertarians are very supportive of unions. They come under 'the right to free assembly and association'. They oppose compulsory membership and political levies and also oppose people having to go on strike if they don't want to. But the right to organise and to withhold labour in any and all circumstances is fundamental to the philosophy.
This is why HYUFD is again wrong to consider Truss a libertarian. Forcing people to work against their will is complete anathema to the ideology.
Although it is from an American perspective the whole thing is covered well here:
Surely the issue is people who claim to be libertarian, but who are not. That cannot be unusual, just as plenty of self proclaimed liberals espouse illiberal ideals, and plenty of Conservatives are far from conservative.
Indeed. Too many people see libertarianism as a right to do what they want but stop others doing the same. They also forget that the basic premise is one of personal responsibility.
Do whatever you want as long as it does not harm others is libertarianism
That amazing libertarian ideal of forcing people to work even if they feel they aren't being paid what they're worth. Which I assume will be done with all the force of the state - rules around claiming benefits, police at picket lines, and the choice between serfdom or starving.
We need to retire the idea that Truss is a libertarian - her economics are not about increasing freedom, it's about capital accumulating with the already rich. There is nothing freeing about being unable to collectively bargain, there is nothing emancipatory about claiming the only working unit is the individual.
Not forcing them to work at all - they can quit.
But why should ordinary members of the public - who aren't party to the wage dispute and can't do anything to resolve it - be the ones to be punished?
In an ideal world, curbs on strikes wouldn't be necessary. But in an ideal world, militant unions wouldn't take it out on people who can't do anything about it.
We already have some of the most restrictive union laws in the west. How much further would you go?
I would require unions who choose to strike to pay compensation to the innocent people they affect by doing so.
So you'd repeal the more than century old golden formula on protecting unions from tortious claims arising from disputes "made in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute", currently contained in section 219 Trade Unions and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, but originally enacted by Disraeli's Tory government in the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875. In doing so, do you expect to avoid the long period of industrial unrest that followed the last attempt to abolish this rule, Heath's, via the Industrial Relations Act 1971, or Thatcher's limiting it to those unions who have passed a vote permitting it? Bold.
Something needs to be done about these vindictive unions. If they choose to strike, damn right they should compensate the innocent people they punish thereby.
That amazing libertarian ideal of forcing people to work even if they feel they aren't being paid what they're worth. Which I assume will be done with all the force of the state - rules around claiming benefits, police at picket lines, and the choice between serfdom or starving.
We need to retire the idea that Truss is a libertarian - her economics are not about increasing freedom, it's about capital accumulating with the already rich. There is nothing freeing about being unable to collectively bargain, there is nothing emancipatory about claiming the only working unit is the individual.
In a truly libertarian world there would be no unions at all and no minimum wage, wages would be purely determined by the free market
Which is why Libertarianism is about as successful as Communism.
You really shouldn't listen to HYUFD's guff about libertarianism. If you are interested (and I genuinely accept you may well not be bothered) then a moment's research will show that libertarians are very supportive of unions. They come under 'the right to free assembly and association'. They oppose compulsory membership and political levies and also oppose people having to go on strike if they don't want to. But the right to organise and to withhold labour in any and all circumstances is fundamental to the philosophy.
This is why HYUFD is again wrong to consider Truss a libertarian. Forcing people to work against their will is complete anathema to the ideology.
Although it is from an American perspective the whole thing is covered well here:
Surely the issue is people who claim to be libertarian, but who are not. That cannot be unusual, just as plenty of self proclaimed liberals espouse illiberal ideals, and plenty of Conservatives are far from conservative.
Indeed. Too many people see libertarianism as a right to do what they want but stop others doing the same. They also forget that the basic premise is one of personal responsibility.
Which is why Libertarianism is about as successful as Communism.
Senior Tory figures are preparing to enforce “brutal” party discipline on rebel MPs when they return to Parliament.
In a hardline drive inspired by Boris’s expulsion of Brexit critics, the whip will be removed for votes against mini-Budget.
(TBC if it works…)
How many Tory MPs are going to look at their chances at the next election and think - blow this I may as well sit as an independent - it will be more fun....
Why not go the whole way and cross the floor? Independents generally do not get elected, but Labour or the Libs do...
See my post earlier on - a lot of Red Wall Tory MPs are not going to be that welcome in the Labour Party. Now some will be but not in the numbers that would make a difference - you can't upset 50+ selected labour candidates seeing their chances go up in smoke as the current Tory candidate transfers over...
And were my current Tory MP to become the Labour Party candidate I would be spoiling my ballot....
There comes a point where if labour were certain of winning the seat, there is nothing to be gained by accepting the defection, certainly not close to the election
Off-topic: I was in a motorway service station yesterday in northern England and there were lots of raucous Rangers fans. Youngsters being cheerful before a football game, I thought. Good luck to them, I thought. And then they started shouting and singing about "Fenians". Sectarian scum! It's hard to imagine an identity solely based on hating a certain perceived group of outsiders, but here...this is what you have.
That amazing libertarian ideal of forcing people to work even if they feel they aren't being paid what they're worth. Which I assume will be done with all the force of the state - rules around claiming benefits, police at picket lines, and the choice between serfdom or starving.
We need to retire the idea that Truss is a libertarian - her economics are not about increasing freedom, it's about capital accumulating with the already rich. There is nothing freeing about being unable to collectively bargain, there is nothing emancipatory about claiming the only working unit is the individual.
Not forcing them to work at all - they can quit.
But why should ordinary members of the public - who aren't party to the wage dispute and can't do anything to resolve it - be the ones to be punished?
In an ideal world, curbs on strikes wouldn't be necessary. But in an ideal world, militant unions wouldn't take it out on people who can't do anything about it.
We already have some of the most restrictive union laws in the west. How much further would you go?
I would require unions who choose to strike to pay compensation to the innocent people they affect by doing so.
How about the managers who create the conditions for the strike?
Not saying it's always management's fault, but you'd be essentially making it impossible for e.g. rail strikes etc to happen, which would enable management to do whatever the hell they wanted.
(And, perhaps bizarrely, I say this as a by choice non-union member in a reasonably unionised profession - quick google says 47%, but that seems low to me anecdotally among colleagues)
That amazing libertarian ideal of forcing people to work even if they feel they aren't being paid what they're worth. Which I assume will be done with all the force of the state - rules around claiming benefits, police at picket lines, and the choice between serfdom or starving.
We need to retire the idea that Truss is a libertarian - her economics are not about increasing freedom, it's about capital accumulating with the already rich. There is nothing freeing about being unable to collectively bargain, there is nothing emancipatory about claiming the only working unit is the individual.
Not forcing them to work at all - they can quit.
But why should ordinary members of the public - who aren't party to the wage dispute and can't do anything to resolve it - be the ones to be punished?
In an ideal world, curbs on strikes wouldn't be necessary. But in an ideal world, militant unions wouldn't take it out on people who can't do anything about it.
If companies can’t afford to pay their workers more, they can’t afford to pay dividends.
We need an election so we can have a government that can get to grips with the crisis we're facing.
This is true, but an election now is an extinction level event for the Tories.
Not just in the number of seats they retain, but who gets the blame.
The Rishi supporters will blame Truss and friends. The headbangers will blame Rishi and friends
They could well split (may be no bad thing)
Because they are in government the internal psychodramas of the Tory party are an issue for the whole country, and this exaggerates the importance of those differences.
Once the Tories are in opposition their internal conflicts will be off very little importance. The world will move on as decisions are made without reference to the personal ambitions of one suck-up to Lord Frost or another.
This will eventually give Tories the perspective to determine which of their differences are important and which are not.
It's a weakness of our system that the strength of the parties is such that the next election will be delayed for two years. If the party system were not too strong then the government would have fallen and we'd be able to move on a couple of years earlier. Two years of drift and decay.
If nothing - the next 2 years will demonstrate that we really do need to change our voting system.
Hopefully SKS and co will realise this and ensure they treat it as a priority after the next election. My concern would be that Labour win 400 seats and it becomes impossible to implement
That amazing libertarian ideal of forcing people to work even if they feel they aren't being paid what they're worth. Which I assume will be done with all the force of the state - rules around claiming benefits, police at picket lines, and the choice between serfdom or starving.
We need to retire the idea that Truss is a libertarian - her economics are not about increasing freedom, it's about capital accumulating with the already rich. There is nothing freeing about being unable to collectively bargain, there is nothing emancipatory about claiming the only working unit is the individual.
In a truly libertarian world there would be no unions at all and no minimum wage, wages would be purely determined by the free market
Which is why Libertarianism is about as successful as Communism.
You really shouldn't listen to HYUFD's guff about libertarianism. If you are interested (and I genuinely accept you may well not be bothered) then a moment's research will show that libertarians are very supportive of unions. They come under 'the right to free assembly and association'. They oppose compulsory membership and political levies and also oppose people having to go on strike if they don't want to. But the right to organise and to withhold labour in any and all circumstances is fundamental to the philosophy.
This is why HYUFD is again wrong to consider Truss a libertarian. Forcing people to work against their will is complete anathema to the ideology.
Although it is from an American perspective the whole thing is covered well here:
That link says unions formed under the National Labor Relations Act (virtually all the biggest US unions like the United Steelworkers ) are illegitimate
That amazing libertarian ideal of forcing people to work even if they feel they aren't being paid what they're worth. Which I assume will be done with all the force of the state - rules around claiming benefits, police at picket lines, and the choice between serfdom or starving.
We need to retire the idea that Truss is a libertarian - her economics are not about increasing freedom, it's about capital accumulating with the already rich. There is nothing freeing about being unable to collectively bargain, there is nothing emancipatory about claiming the only working unit is the individual.
Not forcing them to work at all - they can quit.
But why should ordinary members of the public - who aren't party to the wage dispute and can't do anything to resolve it - be the ones to be punished?
In an ideal world, curbs on strikes wouldn't be necessary. But in an ideal world, militant unions wouldn't take it out on people who can't do anything about it.
We already have some of the most restrictive union laws in the west. How much further would you go?
I would require unions who choose to strike to pay compensation to the innocent people they affect by doing so.
How about the managers who create the conditions for the strike?
Not saying it's always management's fault, but you'd be essentially making it impossible for e.g. rail strikes etc to happen, which would enable management to do whatever the hell they wanted.
(And, perhaps bizarrely, I say this as a by choice non-union member in a reasonably unionised profession - quick google says 47%, but that seems low to me anecdotally among colleagues)
The managers aren't the ones choosing to go on strike, though, are they?
That amazing libertarian ideal of forcing people to work even if they feel they aren't being paid what they're worth. Which I assume will be done with all the force of the state - rules around claiming benefits, police at picket lines, and the choice between serfdom or starving.
We need to retire the idea that Truss is a libertarian - her economics are not about increasing freedom, it's about capital accumulating with the already rich. There is nothing freeing about being unable to collectively bargain, there is nothing emancipatory about claiming the only working unit is the individual.
In a truly libertarian world there would be no unions at all and no minimum wage, wages would be purely determined by the free market
Why would there be no unions...would your libertarians ban them ?
HYUFD has no idea what libertarianism is or what it stands for. He uses it as an insult against anyone who doesn't agree with his ultra-statist, might is right ideology. In another time he would be wearing a black shirt and talking about jailing communists and anarchists.
Whilst I disagree with HYUFD typically, his description of how libertarians act is in keeping with what we see in the world - those right wing self styled libertarians in the US don't want unions to exist, demanding that only individuals can negotiate contracts and that minimum wage shouldn't be a thing.
I don't know of a right wing libertarian system that isn't openly hostile to the very existence of unions.
Wrong. I have already just answered this point with links. HYUFD is completely wrong on this as he is on almost every other topic on which he opines. You really should do your own research.
Wrong, libertarianism is the polar opposite of both socialism and social conservatism.
Pure libertarianism is based on pure free market and pure socially liberal ideology. Essentially as little state as possible
Libertarianism is about personal responsibility and people choosing to freely do as they choose, which of course includes the right to free assembly and therefore to join unions etc if they choose to do so - rather than being forced either that they must, or must not join one.
People freely choosing to join a union is perfectly compatible with a free market. If the state starts banning people from joining unions, then that is a state action which is illiberal, not libertarian.
Off-topic: I was in a motorway service station yesterday in northern England and there were lots of raucous Rangers fans. Youngsters being cheerful before a football game, I thought. Good luck to them, I thought. And then they started shouting and singing about "Fenians". Sectarian scum! It's hard to imagine an identity solely based on hating a certain perceived group of outsiders, but here...this is what you have.
You clearly haven't seen the Corbynite/hard-left side of the Labour party on Twitter if you find it hard to imagine an identity solely based on hating a certain perceived group of Tory scumLabour centrists outsiders
That amazing libertarian ideal of forcing people to work even if they feel they aren't being paid what they're worth. Which I assume will be done with all the force of the state - rules around claiming benefits, police at picket lines, and the choice between serfdom or starving.
We need to retire the idea that Truss is a libertarian - her economics are not about increasing freedom, it's about capital accumulating with the already rich. There is nothing freeing about being unable to collectively bargain, there is nothing emancipatory about claiming the only working unit is the individual.
Not forcing them to work at all - they can quit.
But why should ordinary members of the public - who aren't party to the wage dispute and can't do anything to resolve it - be the ones to be punished?
In an ideal world, curbs on strikes wouldn't be necessary. But in an ideal world, militant unions wouldn't take it out on people who can't do anything about it.
We already have some of the most restrictive union laws in the west. How much further would you go?
I would require unions who choose to strike to pay compensation to the innocent people they affect by doing so.
How about the managers who create the conditions for the strike?
Not saying it's always management's fault, but you'd be essentially making it impossible for e.g. rail strikes etc to happen, which would enable management to do whatever the hell they wanted.
(And, perhaps bizarrely, I say this as a by choice non-union member in a reasonably unionised profession - quick google says 47%, but that seems low to me anecdotally among colleagues)
The managers aren't the ones choosing to go on strike, though, are they?
The TSSA are on strike tomorrow and Friday (at least here in GWR land), so, yes.
I don't know what they're doing differently here in the South of France but the energy prices haven't gone up and petrol is still 1.58 euros a litre....
.....and the sun is shining the cafes are busy the restaurants are heaving and everyone seems happy ........
............. I wonder if they're tuning in to UK TV?
London was exactly the same yesterday. The sun was shining, Selfridges was rammed with shoppers (the Menswear section has a new oyster bar), Marylebone was charmingly busy, Regent’s Park getting ready for Frieze
Armageddon and Depression felt light years away. But they are not
Can you have Armageddon and an (economic) depression at the same time? An economic depression suggests at least some economic activity. I recommend you watch the seminal 1984 BBC TV movie "Threads" that is available on Britbox (although given your apparent nervous disposition maybe not a good idea - read the Wiki synopsis at least). The last half of it shows that "depression" does not adequately come close to describing a post-Armageddon economy.
Oh don't mention Threads to Leon. He watched it a few days ago and has been in a blue funk ever since. We only manage to get him to sleep at night by dosing his warm milk with a tot of whisky.
I know. In Leon's own words "It was clearly a joke".
That amazing libertarian ideal of forcing people to work even if they feel they aren't being paid what they're worth. Which I assume will be done with all the force of the state - rules around claiming benefits, police at picket lines, and the choice between serfdom or starving.
We need to retire the idea that Truss is a libertarian - her economics are not about increasing freedom, it's about capital accumulating with the already rich. There is nothing freeing about being unable to collectively bargain, there is nothing emancipatory about claiming the only working unit is the individual.
In a truly libertarian world there would be no unions at all and no minimum wage, wages would be purely determined by the free market
Which is why Libertarianism is about as successful as Communism.
You really shouldn't listen to HYUFD's guff about libertarianism. If you are interested (and I genuinely accept you may well not be bothered) then a moment's research will show that libertarians are very supportive of unions. They come under 'the right to free assembly and association'. They oppose compulsory membership and political levies and also oppose people having to go on strike if they don't want to. But the right to organise and to withhold labour in any and all circumstances is fundamental to the philosophy.
This is why HYUFD is again wrong to consider Truss a libertarian. Forcing people to work against their will is complete anathema to the ideology.
Although it is from an American perspective the whole thing is covered well here:
Surely the issue is people who claim to be libertarian, but who are not. That cannot be unusual, just as plenty of self proclaimed liberals espouse illiberal ideals, and plenty of Conservatives are far from conservative.
Indeed. Too many people see libertarianism as a right to do what they want but stop others doing the same. They also forget that the basic premise is one of personal responsibility.
Do whatever you want as long as it does not harm others is libertarianism
Although in practice it often boils down to a visceral dislike of paying tax.
That amazing libertarian ideal of forcing people to work even if they feel they aren't being paid what they're worth. Which I assume will be done with all the force of the state - rules around claiming benefits, police at picket lines, and the choice between serfdom or starving.
We need to retire the idea that Truss is a libertarian - her economics are not about increasing freedom, it's about capital accumulating with the already rich. There is nothing freeing about being unable to collectively bargain, there is nothing emancipatory about claiming the only working unit is the individual.
Not forcing them to work at all - they can quit.
But why should ordinary members of the public - who aren't party to the wage dispute and can't do anything to resolve it - be the ones to be punished?
In an ideal world, curbs on strikes wouldn't be necessary. But in an ideal world, militant unions wouldn't take it out on people who can't do anything about it.
We already have some of the most restrictive union laws in the west. How much further would you go?
I would require unions who choose to strike to pay compensation to the innocent people they affect by doing so.
How about the managers who create the conditions for the strike?
Not saying it's always management's fault, but you'd be essentially making it impossible for e.g. rail strikes etc to happen, which would enable management to do whatever the hell they wanted.
(And, perhaps bizarrely, I say this as a by choice non-union member in a reasonably unionised profession - quick google says 47%, but that seems low to me anecdotally among colleagues)
The managers aren't the ones choosing to go on strike, though, are they?
The TSSA are on strike tomorrow and Friday (at least here in GWR land), so, yes.
I just noticed your profile picture. Ned says hello to Buenaventura.
Senior Tory figures are preparing to enforce “brutal” party discipline on rebel MPs when they return to Parliament.
In a hardline drive inspired by Boris’s expulsion of Brexit critics, the whip will be removed for votes against mini-Budget.
(TBC if it works…)
How many Tory MPs are going to look at their chances at the next election and think - blow this I may as well sit as an independent - it will be more fun....
Why not go the whole way and cross the floor? Independents generally do not get elected, but Labour or the Libs do...
See my post earlier on - a lot of Red Wall Tory MPs are not going to be that welcome in the Labour Party. Now some will be but not in the numbers that would make a difference - you can't upset 50+ selected labour candidates seeing their chances go up in smoke as the current Tory candidate transfers over...
And were my current Tory MP to become the Labour Party candidate I would be spoiling my ballot....
And once it looks obvious your seat is lost, it’s a terrible look, anyway.
Incoming defectors are more often than not bad news for the receiving party, sooner or later.
Much as the Labour party has done the Tories are going to have to find a post apocalypse leader who will purge the UKIP tendency - face down the Faragists and re build from the centre. For that to happen they have to suffer an epic defeat. The hard left seemed in total control a few years ago but now they are a few cranks in the odd Village hall. It will be the likes of Braverman losing the whip eventually. Centrist dads still exist.
That amazing libertarian ideal of forcing people to work even if they feel they aren't being paid what they're worth. Which I assume will be done with all the force of the state - rules around claiming benefits, police at picket lines, and the choice between serfdom or starving.
We need to retire the idea that Truss is a libertarian - her economics are not about increasing freedom, it's about capital accumulating with the already rich. There is nothing freeing about being unable to collectively bargain, there is nothing emancipatory about claiming the only working unit is the individual.
In a truly libertarian world there would be no unions at all and no minimum wage, wages would be purely determined by the free market
Which is why Libertarianism is about as successful as Communism.
You really shouldn't listen to HYUFD's guff about libertarianism. If you are interested (and I genuinely accept you may well not be bothered) then a moment's research will show that libertarians are very supportive of unions. They come under 'the right to free assembly and association'. They oppose compulsory membership and political levies and also oppose people having to go on strike if they don't want to. But the right to organise and to withhold labour in any and all circumstances is fundamental to the philosophy.
This is why HYUFD is again wrong to consider Truss a libertarian. Forcing people to work against their will is complete anathema to the ideology.
Although it is from an American perspective the whole thing is covered well here:
Surely the issue is people who claim to be libertarian, but who are not. That cannot be unusual, just as plenty of self proclaimed liberals espouse illiberal ideals, and plenty of Conservatives are far from conservative.
Indeed. Too many people see libertarianism as a right to do what they want but stop others doing the same. They also forget that the basic premise is one of personal responsibility.
Do whatever you want as long as it does not harm others is libertarianism
Precisely. Which means if people want to join a union, that free assembly is entirely acceptable within libertarianism: do what you want. Join a union if you want to, don't if you don't want to, your choice, your personal responsibility to decide.
You were categorically wrong in what you claimed. Any big state action to compel or forbid unions is illiberal.
That amazing libertarian ideal of forcing people to work even if they feel they aren't being paid what they're worth. Which I assume will be done with all the force of the state - rules around claiming benefits, police at picket lines, and the choice between serfdom or starving.
We need to retire the idea that Truss is a libertarian - her economics are not about increasing freedom, it's about capital accumulating with the already rich. There is nothing freeing about being unable to collectively bargain, there is nothing emancipatory about claiming the only working unit is the individual.
Not forcing them to work at all - they can quit.
But why should ordinary members of the public - who aren't party to the wage dispute and can't do anything to resolve it - be the ones to be punished?
In an ideal world, curbs on strikes wouldn't be necessary. But in an ideal world, militant unions wouldn't take it out on people who can't do anything about it.
We already have some of the most restrictive union laws in the west. How much further would you go?
I would require unions who choose to strike to pay compensation to the innocent people they affect by doing so.
How about the managers who create the conditions for the strike?
Not saying it's always management's fault, but you'd be essentially making it impossible for e.g. rail strikes etc to happen, which would enable management to do whatever the hell they wanted.
(And, perhaps bizarrely, I say this as a by choice non-union member in a reasonably unionised profession - quick google says 47%, but that seems low to me anecdotally among colleagues)
The managers aren't the ones choosing to go on strike, though, are they?
The TSSA are on strike tomorrow and Friday (at least here in GWR land), so, yes.
I just noticed your profile picture. Ned says hello to Buenaventura.
Well spotted.
Big fan of both the Durruti Column and the Durutti Column.
When the Spectator, the Mail and the Telegraph start to turn on the Tories, it is a done deal. Any movement we see from the Tory corpse is just the final spams and twitches as life drains away.
is it worth discussing why, righht now, Wm Hills suggest a 33% probability that LT will be PM after the next election, and Smarkets a 26% chance?
Either PBers as a whole are looking at a distorting mirror, or the betting markets are.
I think there is a chance of a Tory government next time, though getting smaller all the time, but not more than a 5-10% chance of the LT led Torty government after the next election.
Can anyone make the case for 26/33% probabilities?
Senior Tory figures are preparing to enforce “brutal” party discipline on rebel MPs when they return to Parliament.
In a hardline drive inspired by Boris’s expulsion of Brexit critics, the whip will be removed for votes against mini-Budget.
(TBC if it works…)
How many Tory MPs are going to look at their chances at the next election and think - blow this I may as well sit as an independent - it will be more fun....
Why not go the whole way and cross the floor? Independents generally do not get elected, but Labour or the Libs do...
See my post earlier on - a lot of Red Wall Tory MPs are not going to be that welcome in the Labour Party. Now some will be but not in the numbers that would make a difference - you can't upset 50+ selected labour candidates seeing their chances go up in smoke as the current Tory candidate transfers over...
And were my current Tory MP to become the Labour Party candidate I would be spoiling my ballot....
And once it looks obvious your seat is lost, it’s a terrible look, anyway.
Incoming defectors are more often than not bad news for the receiving party, sooner or later.
Yep, you get a positive from it in the short term, and bad headlines for the other party, but its longer term not so good, as you have a MP which is distrusted by many, and also bad blood from local members.
That amazing libertarian ideal of forcing people to work even if they feel they aren't being paid what they're worth. Which I assume will be done with all the force of the state - rules around claiming benefits, police at picket lines, and the choice between serfdom or starving.
We need to retire the idea that Truss is a libertarian - her economics are not about increasing freedom, it's about capital accumulating with the already rich. There is nothing freeing about being unable to collectively bargain, there is nothing emancipatory about claiming the only working unit is the individual.
Not forcing them to work at all - they can quit.
But why should ordinary members of the public - who aren't party to the wage dispute and can't do anything to resolve it - be the ones to be punished?
In an ideal world, curbs on strikes wouldn't be necessary. But in an ideal world, militant unions wouldn't take it out on people who can't do anything about it.
They *are* quitting. Already. In their thousands. And there are no replacements. That's the problem.
You can only use the threat of restrictions on right to strike if you have an ample supply of replacements. There are no doctors you could call on you haven't already recruited. Or nurses. As for teachers, by closing 30% of training courses they're going to absolutely squeeze supply. But that's not even as bad as it sounds because they can't afford to pay their wages anyway.
It's an empty threat. What would she do if they ignored her? Lock them up? Sack them? Sue them?
I would add that actually I don't think education unions are particularly militant. I worked in one school where the head had actually threatened several members of staff with physical violence and they needed a lot of prodding from me to intervene. There were two national strikes in all my years in teaching despite appalling and frequently illegal actions to change terms and conditions and chronic mismanagement and abuse by those in authority. We didn't strike during covid, for example, although we probably should have done given several things the DfE demanded of us were breaches not only of our contracts and covid regulations but of ordinary health and safety law.
That's partly because most teachers don't want to strike. They care about children, unlike say, the DfE or the Daily Mail, and they don't want to disrupt their education. There's actually one Union, the Voice, which has that as its fundamental principle.
But you have to have the right to withdraw your labour to protest at misguided or especially illegal actions by the bosses. That's a fundamental point of workplace law. If she restricts it, the NHS and the education system will certainly both implode.
There's one sentence in my comment which you didn't address, perhaps because you don't have an answer for it:
But why should ordinary members of the public - who aren't party to the wage dispute and can't do anything to resolve it - be the ones to be punished?
If you're not a party to the dispute, you're not directly affected by the dispute.
If you're a customer of the firm whose staff are on strike etc, then you are a party to the dispute.
Not in the sense that you have any way of resolving it.
Of course you do, just not directly, but everything's connected.
If eg your a customer on a train then you could end up paying more in train fees, in order to allow the train firm to pay their staff more, which allows the dispute to be resolved. Or you could choose to take your business elsewhere, drive instead of getting the train, which means that the train firm has less revenue and may need to make redundancies instead.
Everything is connected. If you don't want to be a party to a dispute, don't get involved. Don't use that business or service, if you do, then you're a party whether you want to be or not.
Senior Tory figures are preparing to enforce “brutal” party discipline on rebel MPs when they return to Parliament.
In a hardline drive inspired by Boris’s expulsion of Brexit critics, the whip will be removed for votes against mini-Budget.
(TBC if it works…)
How many Tory MPs are going to look at their chances at the next election and think - blow this I may as well sit as an independent - it will be more fun....
That's going to backfire, epically.
They still get their "loss of office" money whether they have the whip or not. And the chances of winning as an independent have got to be better than standing as a Tory next time around.
Much as the Labour party has done the Tories are going to have to find a post apocalypse leader who will purge the UKIP tendency - face down the Faragists and re build from the centre. For that to happen they have to suffer an epic defeat. The hard left seemed in total control a few years ago but now they are a few cranks in the odd Village hall. It will be the likes of Braverman losing the whip eventually. Centrist dads still exist.
Which is why when the Tory party lose the next election they will be out of power for 10 years minimum.
The next leader after the lost election will be a right wing true believer - only after that has proven to be a complete disaster will the party elect a plausible leader who will appeal to the middle ground
The Nobel Prize in Chemistry has gone to Carolyn Bertozzi, Morton Meldal, and Barry Sharpless for their work on snipping molecules together, known as click chemistry. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-63121338
The BBC does not (yet) say this but Barry Sharpless has now won two Nobel Prizes.
That amazing libertarian ideal of forcing people to work even if they feel they aren't being paid what they're worth. Which I assume will be done with all the force of the state - rules around claiming benefits, police at picket lines, and the choice between serfdom or starving.
We need to retire the idea that Truss is a libertarian - her economics are not about increasing freedom, it's about capital accumulating with the already rich. There is nothing freeing about being unable to collectively bargain, there is nothing emancipatory about claiming the only working unit is the individual.
Not forcing them to work at all - they can quit.
But why should ordinary members of the public - who aren't party to the wage dispute and can't do anything to resolve it - be the ones to be punished?
In an ideal world, curbs on strikes wouldn't be necessary. But in an ideal world, militant unions wouldn't take it out on people who can't do anything about it.
We already have some of the most restrictive union laws in the west. How much further would you go?
I would require unions who choose to strike to pay compensation to the innocent people they affect by doing so.
So you'd repeal the more than century old golden formula on protecting unions from tortious claims arising from disputes "made in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute", currently contained in section 219 Trade Unions and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, but originally enacted by Disraeli's Tory government in the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875. In doing so, do you expect to avoid the long period of industrial unrest that followed the last attempt to abolish this rule, Heath's, via the Industrial Relations Act 1971, or Thatcher's limiting it to those unions who have passed a vote permitting it? Bold.
Something needs to be done about these vindictive unions. If they choose to strike, damn right they should compensate the innocent people they punish thereby.
"They" don't choose to strike. Their members, ordinary decent working people, who themselves are the victims of vindictive employers, choose to strike. The unions are merely the vehicles through which their members lodge their protests. The companies who force them to strike should be paying. Where do you think the unions would find the money to pay these claims? Through their already downtrodden members, who you seem to think lower than the people they normally serve without complaint, for some reason.
Much as the Labour party has done the Tories are going to have to find a post apocalypse leader who will purge the UKIP tendency - face down the Faragists and re build from the centre. For that to happen they have to suffer an epic defeat. The hard left seemed in total control a few years ago but now they are a few cranks in the odd Village hall. It will be the likes of Braverman losing the whip eventually. Centrist dads still exist.
Which is why when the Tory party lose the next election they will be out of power for 10 years minimum.
The next leader after the lost election will be a right wing true believer - only after that has proven to be a complete disaster will the party elect a plausible leader who will appeal to the middle ground
It took the Tories 3 leaders from Major to Cameron and Labour 3 leaders from Blair to Starmer
The Nobel Prize in Chemistry has gone to Carolyn Bertozzi, Morton Meldal, and Barry Sharpless for their work on snipping molecules together, known as click chemistry. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-63121338
The BBC does not (yet) say this but Barry Sharpless has now won two Nobel Prizes.
Shared 2 Nobel prizes for chemistry and joins a select group
Senior Tory figures are preparing to enforce “brutal” party discipline on rebel MPs when they return to Parliament.
In a hardline drive inspired by Boris’s expulsion of Brexit critics, the whip will be removed for votes against mini-Budget.
(TBC if it works…)
How many Tory MPs are going to look at their chances at the next election and think - blow this I may as well sit as an independent - it will be more fun....
Why not go the whole way and cross the floor? Independents generally do not get elected, but Labour or the Libs do...
See my post earlier on - a lot of Red Wall Tory MPs are not going to be that welcome in the Labour Party. Now some will be but not in the numbers that would make a difference - you can't upset 50+ selected labour candidates seeing their chances go up in smoke as the current Tory candidate transfers over...
And were my current Tory MP to become the Labour Party candidate I would be spoiling my ballot....
And once it looks obvious your seat is lost, it’s a terrible look, anyway.
Incoming defectors are more often than not bad news for the receiving party, sooner or later.
Yep, you get a positive from it in the short term, and bad headlines for the other party, but its longer term not so good, as you have a MP which is distrusted by many, and also bad blood from local members.
Going indy (in the whip sense) does work sometimes. Mr Canavan demonstrated for the rest of us how to do it:
Throughout his political life, Canavan played a leading part in the campaign for a Scottish Parliament. When Labour was in opposition, he led a nationwide consultation about devolution, on behalf of the Scottish Group of Labour MPs, leading to the publication of a bill to establish a Scottish Parliament with revenue-raising powers. However, in 1999, when the first elections to the Scottish Parliament were held, the New Labour leadership rejected him as an official Labour candidate, despite the fact that he had the support of 97% of local party members. He therefore stood as an Independent, and was consequently expelled from the party.[3] Although there were rumours he would join the Scottish National Party, he did not join another party. He won with almost 55 percent of the vote, the highest majority of any MSP in the 1999 election. He resigned his Westminster seat in 2000 to concentrate on representing his constituents in the Scottish Parliament. Canavan retained his Holyrood seat in 2003 with 55.7 percent of the vote, again with the biggest majority in Scotland.
Much as the Labour party has done the Tories are going to have to find a post apocalypse leader who will purge the UKIP tendency - face down the Faragists and re build from the centre. For that to happen they have to suffer an epic defeat. The hard left seemed in total control a few years ago but now they are a few cranks in the odd Village hall. It will be the likes of Braverman losing the whip eventually. Centrist dads still exist.
Which is why when the Tory party lose the next election they will be out of power for 10 years minimum.
The next leader after the lost election will be a right wing true believer - only after that has proven to be a complete disaster will the party elect a plausible leader who will appeal to the middle ground
Unfortunately politics doesn't always work that way.
In 2012 after one term out of office the GOP went for Romney who could have been a decent President, but the American public weren't ready to turf out Obama who was a decent President.
In 2016 after two terms out of office they went for the batshit crazy instead, and the batshit crazy got elected.
That amazing libertarian ideal of forcing people to work even if they feel they aren't being paid what they're worth. Which I assume will be done with all the force of the state - rules around claiming benefits, police at picket lines, and the choice between serfdom or starving.
We need to retire the idea that Truss is a libertarian - her economics are not about increasing freedom, it's about capital accumulating with the already rich. There is nothing freeing about being unable to collectively bargain, there is nothing emancipatory about claiming the only working unit is the individual.
In a truly libertarian world there would be no unions at all and no minimum wage, wages would be purely determined by the free market
Which is why Libertarianism is about as successful as Communism.
You really shouldn't listen to HYUFD's guff about libertarianism. If you are interested (and I genuinely accept you may well not be bothered) then a moment's research will show that libertarians are very supportive of unions. They come under 'the right to free assembly and association'. They oppose compulsory membership and political levies and also oppose people having to go on strike if they don't want to. But the right to organise and to withhold labour in any and all circumstances is fundamental to the philosophy.
This is why HYUFD is again wrong to consider Truss a libertarian. Forcing people to work against their will is complete anathema to the ideology.
Although it is from an American perspective the whole thing is covered well here:
Surely the issue is people who claim to be libertarian, but who are not. That cannot be unusual, just as plenty of self proclaimed liberals espouse illiberal ideals, and plenty of Conservatives are far from conservative.
Indeed. Too many people see libertarianism as a right to do what they want but stop others doing the same. They also forget that the basic premise is one of personal responsibility.
Do whatever you want as long as it does not harm others is libertarianism
Precisely. Which means if people want to join a union, that free assembly is entirely acceptable within libertarianism: do what you want. Join a union if you want to, don't if you don't want to, your choice, your personal responsibility to decide.
You were categorically wrong in what you claimed. Any big state action to compel or forbid unions is illiberal.
I just pointed out to you US libertarians oppose the National Labor Relations Act, the basis of private sector employees in the US being able to organise into unions, pursue collective bargaining and strike
That amazing libertarian ideal of forcing people to work even if they feel they aren't being paid what they're worth. Which I assume will be done with all the force of the state - rules around claiming benefits, police at picket lines, and the choice between serfdom or starving.
We need to retire the idea that Truss is a libertarian - her economics are not about increasing freedom, it's about capital accumulating with the already rich. There is nothing freeing about being unable to collectively bargain, there is nothing emancipatory about claiming the only working unit is the individual.
Not forcing them to work at all - they can quit.
But why should ordinary members of the public - who aren't party to the wage dispute and can't do anything to resolve it - be the ones to be punished?
In an ideal world, curbs on strikes wouldn't be necessary. But in an ideal world, militant unions wouldn't take it out on people who can't do anything about it.
We already have some of the most restrictive union laws in the west. How much further would you go?
I would require unions who choose to strike to pay compensation to the innocent people they affect by doing so.
How about the managers who create the conditions for the strike?
Not saying it's always management's fault, but you'd be essentially making it impossible for e.g. rail strikes etc to happen, which would enable management to do whatever the hell they wanted.
(And, perhaps bizarrely, I say this as a by choice non-union member in a reasonably unionised profession - quick google says 47%, but that seems low to me anecdotally among colleagues)
The managers aren't the ones choosing to go on strike, though, are they?
No, its their employees, who the managers force into this position.
How does an individual whose only marketable skill is, say, laying railway tracks express his opposition to the actions of management save through striking? Move to to a rival provider to Network Rail? Ditto nurses and firemen. Should they just find another job?
She's not that good at reading off the autocue. For some reason it looks like she is being stalked from over her shoulder as she casts surreptitious glances from one side to the other.
When the Spectator, the Mail and the Telegraph start to turn on the Tories, it is a done deal. Any movement we see from the Tory corpse is just the final spams and twitches as life drains away.
is it worth discussing why, righht now, Wm Hills suggest a 33% probability that LT will be PM after the next election, and Smarkets a 26% chance?
Either PBers as a whole are looking at a distorting mirror, or the betting markets are.
I think there is a chance of a Tory government next time, though getting smaller all the time, but not more than a 5-10% chance of the LT led Torty government after the next election.
Can anyone make the case for 26/33% probabilities?
Perhaps a couple of arguments.
One, you could look at something like the fuel crisis in September 2000, when the government rapidly lost popularity because it looked like it wasn't in control of events, but quickly recovered after resolving the situation. The very speed of Truss' decline opens up the possibility that people's views are not yet fixed.
Second, this also touches on a point Casino made recently, that politics is now so much more volatile. If politics is much more console then there's more potential for it to change again, and the respective populations of the two parties is more random than determined by the current state of play.
Much as the Labour party has done the Tories are going to have to find a post apocalypse leader who will purge the UKIP tendency - face down the Faragists and re build from the centre. For that to happen they have to suffer an epic defeat. The hard left seemed in total control a few years ago but now they are a few cranks in the odd Village hall. It will be the likes of Braverman losing the whip eventually. Centrist dads still exist.
Which is why when the Tory party lose the next election they will be out of power for 10 years minimum.
The next leader after the lost election will be a right wing true believer - only after that has proven to be a complete disaster will the party elect a plausible leader who will appeal to the middle ground
Unfortunately politics doesn't always work that way.
In 2012 after one term out of office the GOP went for Romney who could have been a decent President, but the American public weren't ready to turf out Obama who was a decent President.
In 2016 after two terms out of office they went for the batshit crazy instead, and the batshit crazy got elected.
Comments
The weird things about police, though, is when they strike - crime goes down - so I'm also in favour from that pov:
https://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-proactive-policing-crime-20170925-story.html
If she goes on to win a general election it will be a comeback on a par with a resurrected Elvis replacing Britney in Las Vegas…
Not just in the number of seats they retain, but who gets the blame.
The Rishi supporters will blame Truss and friends. The headbangers will blame Rishi and friends
They could well split (may be no bad thing)
This is an S&M government in its death throes.....
That, and two young working class kids working on the spacious flat they intend to buy.
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/james-cleverly-hits-out-at-cabinet-colleagues_uk_633d4536e4b02816452f6ac6
But you miss the point - saying "the people elect the government", whilst true, doesn't help the people today give the rail workers more money today. Or are you telling me that these strikes will go on until the next election in 2024 or even 2025?
Some examples that spring to mind: the Putilov steelworks strike in Petrograd, caused by overwork, dangerous conditions, lack of food and violent repression. This spiralled in a mere week into the February REvolution.
The Penrhyn Strike from 1900-1905, which ended in effect with the destruction of the Welsh slate industry because nobody could work out how to resolve it and foreign imports took all the market. Which didn't really help anyone.
See you later.
https://twitter.com/RMCunliffe/status/1577591591845433348
EDIT: This is exactly what Dan Finkelstein is talking about
Yet the Tory party seems to want to be at war with as many people as it can find. Metropolitan elites, people who study golf course management in universities, young people, the Treasury, big business, people who work from home, the International Monetary Fund, the civil service, the BBC. The only people who don’t think the Conservative Party is for the rich are the rich who think the Tory party hates them.
So yes, if we want to sort it out we need the government to deal with the underlying issues, or elect a new government at the earliest possible moment.
It will tell it’s readership that the policies are right it’s just that they’ve been incompetently delivered. The reason they are not arriving at a land of milk and honey is not because low tax or deregulation is a bad thing, but because Truss and Kwarteng are so useless that they have fumbled the delivery.
That will then give them cause to start their next crusade once the Tories lose the election, which will be “this wouldn’t have happened if Truss had been more competent / more anti woke / had allowed Suella to go nuts on migrants / rinse, repeat. And they will expect the new Tory leadership to follow that tune.
And now I really must be going. See you later.
https://twitter.com/lawandsexuality/status/1577595213484261379
Ben Riley-Smith
@benrileysmith
Exclusive
Senior Tory figures are preparing to enforce “brutal” party discipline on rebel MPs when they return to Parliament.
In a hardline drive inspired by Boris’s expulsion of Brexit critics, the whip will be removed for votes against mini-Budget.
(TBC if it works…)
How many Tory MPs are going to look at their chances at the next election and think - blow this I may as well sit as an independent - it will be more fun....
It’s now down 35% from the peak in July.
Once the Tories are in opposition their internal conflicts will be off very little importance. The world will move on as decisions are made without reference to the personal ambitions of one suck-up to Lord Frost or another.
This will eventually give Tories the perspective to determine which of their differences are important and which are not.
It's a weakness of our system that the strength of the parties is such that the next election will be delayed for two years. If the party system were not too strong then the government would have fallen and we'd be able to move on a couple of years earlier. Two years of drift and decay.
And were my current Tory MP to become the Labour Party candidate I would be spoiling my ballot....
Pure libertarianism is based on pure free market and pure socially liberal ideology. Essentially as little state as possible
Not saying it's always management's fault, but you'd be essentially making it impossible for e.g. rail strikes etc to happen, which would enable management to do whatever the hell they wanted.
(And, perhaps bizarrely, I say this as a by choice non-union member in a reasonably unionised profession - quick google says 47%, but that seems low to me anecdotally among colleagues)
Hopefully SKS and co will realise this and ensure they treat it as a priority after the next election. My concern would be that Labour win 400 seats and it becomes impossible to implement
I personally don't think so.
People freely choosing to join a union is perfectly compatible with a free market. If the state starts banning people from joining unions, then that is a state action which is illiberal, not libertarian.
https://twitter.com/wallaceme/status/1577589012415582208
Incoming defectors are more often than not bad news for the receiving party, sooner or later.
You were categorically wrong in what you claimed. Any big state action to compel or forbid unions is illiberal.
Big fan of both the Durruti Column and the Durutti Column.
Either PBers as a whole are looking at a distorting mirror, or the betting markets are.
I think there is a chance of a Tory government next time, though getting smaller all the time, but not more than a 5-10% chance of the LT led Torty government after the next election.
Can anyone make the case for 26/33% probabilities?
I see that Sky News has the £/$ ticker ready on screen….
If eg your a customer on a train then you could end up paying more in train fees, in order to allow the train firm to pay their staff more, which allows the dispute to be resolved. Or you could choose to take your business elsewhere, drive instead of getting the train, which means that the train firm has less revenue and may need to make redundancies instead.
Everything is connected. If you don't want to be a party to a dispute, don't get involved. Don't use that business or service, if you do, then you're a party whether you want to be or not.
The next leader after the lost election will be a right wing true believer - only after that has proven to be a complete disaster will the party elect a plausible leader who will appeal to the middle ground
The Nobel Prize in Chemistry has gone to Carolyn Bertozzi, Morton Meldal, and Barry Sharpless for their work on snipping molecules together, known as click chemistry.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-63121338
The BBC does not (yet) say this but Barry Sharpless has now won two Nobel Prizes.
Oh, and @Leon, she has That Necklace on.
Bardeen 2x physics; Sanger 2x chemistry; Curie physics + chem; Pauling chem + peace
I would still love to understand what he won them for...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Canavan#Retirement
Throughout his political life, Canavan played a leading part in the campaign for a Scottish Parliament. When Labour was in opposition, he led a nationwide consultation about devolution, on behalf of the Scottish Group of Labour MPs, leading to the publication of a bill to establish a Scottish Parliament with revenue-raising powers. However, in 1999, when the first elections to the Scottish Parliament were held, the New Labour leadership rejected him as an official Labour candidate, despite the fact that he had the support of 97% of local party members. He therefore stood as an Independent, and was consequently expelled from the party.[3] Although there were rumours he would join the Scottish National Party, he did not join another party. He won with almost 55 percent of the vote, the highest majority of any MSP in the 1999 election. He resigned his Westminster seat in 2000 to concentrate on representing his constituents in the Scottish Parliament. Canavan retained his Holyrood seat in 2003 with 55.7 percent of the vote, again with the biggest majority in Scotland.
(Trivia: Heather Small’s son was elected as a Labour councillor in May) https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1577602530313371652/video/1
Law suit incoming??
@caitlinmoran
Amazing line from guy on the BBC talking about the Tories, post-Boris: "The ringmaster has left the circus, and now the lions are eating the clowns."
In 2012 after one term out of office the GOP went for Romney who could have been a decent President, but the American public weren't ready to turf out Obama who was a decent President.
In 2016 after two terms out of office they went for the batshit crazy instead, and the batshit crazy got elected.
How does an individual whose only marketable skill is, say, laying railway tracks express his opposition to the actions of management save through striking? Move to to a rival provider to Network Rail? Ditto nurses and firemen. Should they just find another job?
One, you could look at something like the fuel crisis in September 2000, when the government rapidly lost popularity because it looked like it wasn't in control of events, but quickly recovered after resolving the situation. The very speed of Truss' decline opens up the possibility that people's views are not yet fixed.
Second, this also touches on a point Casino made recently, that politics is now so much more volatile. If politics is much more console then there's more potential for it to change again, and the respective populations of the two parties is more random than determined by the current state of play.